Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 09:05:48 PM
Quote
February 1, 2007 - Nvidia, one of the world's leading producers of graphics processing technology, seems to differ in opinion from Nintendo president Satoru Iwata on the subject of game visuals. In a recent interview with Next-Gen business, VP of content Roy Taylor voiced his opinion on the matter of gaming graphics and presentation.
"They're talking nonsense," he said of Nintendo assertion that videogame graphics have reached a saturation point. "It's ridiculous sot say that graphics don't matter. That's like saying 'The quality of my TV screen doesn't matter.' Oh really? So then in that case, you can go watch 24 in black-and-white on a seven-inch screen. It's nonsense to say graphics don't matter. I think we can do a lot better, but I think we'd like to see graphics encompassing the gameplay."
During the interview Taylor does state that gameplay can oftentimes play second fiddle to a game's visuals but reiterates that graphics will bring more emotion into software, stating that gamers seldom become as emotionally invested in characters from a videogame as they do in movies.
What is most ridiculous about this statement is that I found characters from Kingdom Hearts, Zelda etc etc, to be engaging (yes that word) and emotionally fulfilling. It really seems Nvidia is bitter about the money they are losing on PS3 and are trying to degrade Nintendo who is using a competitor. Not only that but he is using the same old straw man argument by giving the worse possible comparison such as watching a black and white 7 inch screen. I agree to an extent that graphics do matter, but above all else character and artistic design is what conveys emotion more so than pretty visuals, luckily the Wii can use alittle of both. Really though I remember being heartbroken at the end of Super Metroid, so it isn't the graphics that create emotions but design!
Post by: IceCold on February 01, 2007, 09:08:06 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on February 01, 2007, 09:08:55 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 09:13:32 PM
.
Post by: King of Twitch on February 01, 2007, 09:26:59 PM
Post by: oohhboy on February 01, 2007, 10:06:24 PM
Post by: Nephilim on February 01, 2007, 10:27:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
ATI FTW
They have really fallen behind, much like AMD to intel
really dont know how ATI win, when 7900 series is more popular
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 11:56:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
He doesn't get it. Graphics is a dead end race. We will get to photorealism. It is a matter of when and how we get there. The cost for the next improvement is getting higher and higher with proportionaly smaller returns. Nintendo went and bypassed all that by exploring and exploiting a relatively new field where the cost for the next big thing is so much lower. No wonder he is pissed. He knows one day his company won't matter anymore, the time where no one can tell a budget card from a premium.
You basically hit the nail on the head. At some point in the future, the near future, graphics will become obsolete simply because everything will look and act exactly as they do in the real world. Once that bridge is passed, there's nowhere else to go.
But what I think he's most upset about is that Nintendo is proving that you don't need to blow several hundred dollars on a high end card just to play video games. Basically, if people are willing to buy such an underpowered system and still enjoy it throughly then what really is the point for all of these technological upgrades?
If Nintendo's ideas really catch on these companies are going to be in a world of hurt because people aren't going to be willing to spend what's required to be on the bleeding edge every time they release some new hardware.
Post by: BlkPaladin on February 02, 2007, 12:16:30 AM
Of course NVidia is going to say something like this they make a living off of selling graphic cards, and is Sony's partner. Simular to CPU power there is really a limit to how much power you can pack in a graphics card and they are going to hit a point where a new iteration of a card just means more or different RAM with a "better" utilization of the memory bandwidth and nothing supstancial in what it does.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 01:06:37 AM
He sounds like he's a Slashdot user, strawman arguments are popular there. Strawman means taking an oppinion, pushing it up in a way that it becomes obviously idiotic and then refuting it. Bravo, you've just debunked some silly argument but you haven't done anything about the one presented by your opponent.
If you apply common sense it should be clear that Iwata wasn't talking about the difference between the Atari 2600 and the PS3, he was talking about the now, the current generational leap in graphics. I think he even said that he's referring to only that leap. The returns for increased system power have become so small they aren't worth pursuing. Both the XBox 360 and the PS3 didn't manage to hold the 300$ pricepoint because they had to push so much hardware in there to make the generational jump large enough. If they hadn't tried to go forward with their hardware so much and instead taken what they could get for the 300$ pricepoint the next gen leap may have been too unimpressive for people to care.
Post by: Ceric on February 02, 2007, 01:34:31 AM
Post by: Strell on February 02, 2007, 01:50:06 AM
At no point in time did Nintendo ever say "graphics do not matter." Never. This is the invention, paraphrase, miscontruction, misdirection, and contortion of the Internet at work. It is no different than any other urban legend or game of telephone. Everyone adds on their own little twist, or changes a word here or there with what they believe to be a synonym, and it builds up over time. Purple Monkey Dishwasher.
This is why I'm so tired of hearing it.
What they did say - and this is all there is to it - is that graphics will hit a ceiling.
That is ALL.
It is that simple, it is that clear. There is nothing more or less to it. They didn't say graphics don't matter. They didn't even say they have peaked. They have said that, in looking to the future, graphics will indeed reach a point where they cannot be surpassed, no matter how much technology evolves.
At some point, we can't bump map the bump maps. We can't shade the shaders. We can't add more polygons, we can't make MORE shadows when they aren't there, and the bloom lighting is going to make my eyeballs explode. Nintendo has simply acknowledged that no matter how great the graphics are now, at some point they will hit the wall, we won't have anywhere to go, and at that point, there's nothing that can be done to improve them. And they understand that their presence in this industry - which just got secured quite solidly for several more years, if not decades - means that they will most definitely be around when that time comes.
And if that is the case, then what is the rush to get to that limit? ESPECIALLY for Nintendo, who has been in the business longer than Sony and MS combined, and will surely be there alongside them for a long time. Nintendo is being smart about it from their own internal business perspective, which is basically saying "we can slow down, because there's no need to race to that finish line immediately."
And why do they think this? Well, if the PS3 isn't a good enough example, I don't know what is. Here we have a system with supposedly the most awesome specs ever dreamed of, and it's sitting on the shelves because of the high cost to consumers. Factor in the cost to Sony - who is losing a nice bundle on each system - and it's pretty easy to see why Nintendo has gone this route.
It's like in an RPG game where you start out and you need money. And every time you think you have enough, you suddenly find Silver Armor and it costs 4000 gp, and you've only got 7932, which is a LOT for where you are, and you need at least three Silver Armors (because your stupid Black Mage can't wear it), so you suddenly need 12,000 gp. Yet, a few hours later in the game, gold is totally useless. You'll be sitting on a stockpile that you'll never be able to deplete. And at that point, all that "omfg I need money!" moments are gone forever.
We're about halfway through the game, if you want to continue that metaphor. Hell, we might be 60-70% through. After Gears of War, what is still needed? I guess maybe you could have more enemies on the screen, or you could throw out a lot of animated sequences going on in the background. But in terms of graphics, what do you do after that? Do you make the draw in distance longer? Do you have 100s of enemies? Do you make the lighting better?
I just don't see what it is all these graphics nuts seem to think is missing. We're going to have the Unreal and Crytek engines running around that can render near photorealistic stuff. So what's after that?
Nothing. At some point these companies are going to reach the end of their developmental cycles, and it's going to be nothing more than EA like upgrades every year. Now the lighting uses better blending in matter. You don't notice it as a gamer because who the f*ck stands around looking at how light dissipates in water, but I guess it's comforting to know someone thought of it.
Back to Nintendo - they recognize all of this in a very simple way. 1) They will continue to be in the business. 2) They too will someday manufacture a system capable of HD graphics utilizing amazing engines. 3) The race to get there has an end, and in the short term, it requires paying for expensive and experimental hardware. 4) This causes development time to be increased, which drives up costs. 5) All of this is bad for your bottom line, and only serves to cause delays and frustrations to your customers.
This is why Nintendo opted for the Wii's graphical "shortcomings" (in a relative sense compared to the 360 and PS3) - because it has too many potential downfalls to really damage a company.
And yet despite ALL of that, at NO TIME did Nintendo ever say "graphics don't matter." NEVER. They have said HD will have it's time. They have said they will value gameplay and controller interfaces to a higher degree, and they have said they will focus on the games. I've noticed that people love to do this - if you don't say A you are saying B, and that's just retarded. You could MAYBE say Nintendo was downplaying the importance of graphics, but even that is a stretch.
You can faithfully say "I like chocolate" and not imply you suddenly hate vanilla. I realize that is a very difficult concept to understand, even for big time graphics man, but that is the case. It's one of the simplest rules of language, and I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to get it. And that is the deal here. That is the only deal here, and that is all the deal will ever be. I don't even need to go and defend Zelda's graphics, or talk about how the Gamecube was a very powerful system, or any of those other things. There's no need at all, because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is little more than a man whining and whining and whining.
This attack needs to stop. It's the product of stupid fanboys and money hats, with a lot of people saying a lot of bullsh*t they know that they can't back up unless they grasp at some imaginary straws. Yes, imaginary. You are making this sh*t up at this point, people.
What I wouldn't give to inject a huge dose of common sense into the gaming industry like it was a mushroom that made you giant.
Post by: MaryJane on February 02, 2007, 02:16:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I like how they stated that Nintendo said they have reached saturation. Though I do hope that when the Wii 2 comes out we might have reached that platue(sp?) So I don't have to buy a new game console for a long time after that.
Plateau.
Post by: Adrock on February 02, 2007, 02:17:58 AM
Wii didn't need HD graphics, but they definitely aimed too low. I've read that the general rule of thumb is that high-def graphics require something like 3 times the processing power. It would've been nice if Nintendo was somewhere near upper crust, non-HD area. Still, I'm a believer in art direction. I don't care how nice the textures look. If the art is sub-par, the game doesn't impress me graphics wise.
Post by: Nick DiMola on February 02, 2007, 02:20:18 AM
"You can faithfully say "I like chocolate" and not imply you suddenly hate vanilla."
That quote really sums it up. Just because Nintendo isn't interested in pursuing a higher level of graphics right now doesn't mean they hate graphics and they think they are pointless. You can bet your ass the graphical capabilities of Nintendo's next console will be at least where the 360 and the PS3 are because it will be logical and reasonably inexpensive at that point to incorporate those graphical capabilities. And what will be the difference at that point, in graphical prowess, between the PS4 and the Wii 2? The games will look nearly the same, except Sony will be paying tons of money to push a few more polygons.
Graphics are running into a brick wall, and that wall is coming up soon. There are alot more advances that can be made in animation and physics that will bring realism to videogames. Once we hit photo realism though, at least in the graphics department, there is nowhere else to move from there besides into developing something new we have never seen before. At this point, the only thing pushing the game industry forward is creativity. People learn how to use what they have to work with better and can push the system to it's limits and create some amazing games.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on February 02, 2007, 02:22:08 AM
Post by: MaryJane on February 02, 2007, 02:36:55 AM
I remember during the GC days one of the biggest arguments made against the PS2 was that the GC had more graphical power. Although, I suppose that could be the reason that us Nintenerds realize that it isn't that important to be the most graphically superior.
Oh and another thing, it's not the fairest comparison but the Twilight Princess on component cables looks on par with some X360 games on composite cables. The graphical leap isn't that great, I look at Zelda and I'm like wow, what more do you really want from your graphics but pretty pictures, and smooth textures?
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 03:11:45 AM
Less bloom?
Post by: couchmonkey on February 02, 2007, 03:45:36 AM
(okay, maybe a little less)Yeah, um, you guys have said it all. Wii could have used more power, heck, I would've paid an extra $100 for better graphics, but we're reaching the end of the road here, I don't see a ton of room for improvement anymore.
Post by: JonLeung on February 02, 2007, 03:47:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The graphical leap isn't that great, I look at Zelda and I'm like wow, what more do you really want from your graphics but pretty pictures, and smooth textures?
Less bloom?
More colour?
The City in the Sky was a really ugly dungeon with so much bloom outside and so much grey inside. Blecch!
Post by: MaryJane on February 02, 2007, 04:34:54 AM
If it was all pretty and wishy washy colorful it wouldn't looked strange IMO. Destruction can be beautiful at times, but not for the Oocoo's
Post by: NeoThunder on February 02, 2007, 05:16:32 AM
We must remember that "Graphics" don't apply to only polygon count. Graphics just simply means appeal to the common eye. I think developer's should always focus on game engines, story, and gameplay in general first before they focus on graphics. Time and time again I get so pissed off when it seems developers didn't play their games first before they released it. When it comes to Boss battles that are so rediculously hard that it takes 20 trys before you get passed, I want stratigy and puzzle solving like a Zelda TP boss battle. I really don't want to hear about any crybaby that says it was "too easy". It's suppossed to be easy when you figure out how to defeat a boss, not exponetially harder.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 02, 2007, 05:42:52 AM
Super Metroid has really good 2D graphics though. A 2D game with comparable graphics released today wouldn't look out of place.
Anyone who says that graphics don't matter is a fool, as is someone who only cares about graphics. Not only does it not need to be an "either/or" situation but it shouldn't be. Great game design is a combination of gameplay and presentation. You use the graphics and the sound to create a setting for the player and then the gameplay is what the player is able to do in that setting. That's what great games are made of.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 05:53:59 AM
When it comes to Boss battles that are so rediculously hard that it takes 20 trys before you get passed, I want stratigy and puzzle solving like a Zelda TP boss battle.
I don't mind that as long as you can see what you're doing wrong (twenty deaths is an average boss in Bunny Must Die, I think I wasted 50 on some, hell, some normal areas kill you 20 times easily). Even 2-3 deaths can become frustrating if I don't see what I can improve (or it takes a long time to retry). I think bosses should be hard even when you know what to do, bosses like TP's are pushovers when you know what you're doing. They're easy even to me who can barely defeat a stalfos in OOT after ten tries.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 02, 2007, 06:24:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nitsu niflheim
I'm sorry, but gameplay comes first. no matter how great the graphics are, a crappy, boring game is still a crappy boring game no mater how pretty you make it. Sh.t is still sh.t no matter how you dress it up.
Kameo =DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
TP spoiler comment: I'd say that Ocarina's Stalfos and TP's final battle are at a comparable difficulty level (but with Ganondorf being easier since the combat animations are more refined and they let you cheat by tumbling behind him and all that junk), aka EASY for anyone with good combat sense. Both fights i believe were developed to reinforce the idea that Link has superior swordsmanship. Link can strike sooner they they can, which goes a long way in breaking the enemies' defenses. You just had to realize it and refine your own reflexes to take advantage of it. In both fights, Ganondorf/Stalfy raises his arm or elbow to prep a strike. Because they are now attacking and not defending, they've created a very brief opening, one long enough for Link to deliver a strike. Essentially, you hit them before they hit you, but you have to respond to cue quickly. And therefore the fights don't last very long since you're now the unstoppable Dread Pirate Roberts. Just as Bruce Lee taught, you read the opponent's body language and intercept the attack itself, since that's the time they're least able to defend. The concept doesn't work as well in a game like SSBM due to balancing and mechanics, but its it's fun (and demoralizing to the opponent) nonetheless when it's applied effectively.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 07:09:27 AM
Post by: Smoke39 on February 02, 2007, 07:14:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I do think Nintendop overdid it with the "weak graphics" approach, the Wii doesn't even have shaders. They could at least have made sure the Wii is better than the original XBox in EVERY aspect.
The Wii has shaders. Even the 'Cube had shaders (that's where the shimmer effects through forcefields in Rogue Leader and in hot areas, etc. come from). I don't know how they compare to the XBox, though.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 02, 2007, 07:19:18 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 07:19:19 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 02, 2007, 11:42:04 AM
NO WAI!!!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2007, 02:33:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Really though I remember being heartbroken at the end of Super Metroid, so it isn't the graphics that create emotions but design!"
Super Metroid has really good 2D graphics though. A 2D game with comparable graphics released today wouldn't look out of place.
Anyone who says that graphics don't matter is a fool, as is someone who only cares about graphics. Not only does it not need to be an "either/or" situation but it shouldn't be. Great game design is a combination of gameplay and presentation. You use the graphics and the sound to create a setting for the player and then the gameplay is what the player is able to do in that setting. That's what great games are made of.
I don't think anyone here is saying graphics don't matter, they do, but like others have said it more artistic approach that makes you care about the characters and gets your involved with the game. That is why I also used Kingdom HEarts 1 and 2, both games are considered graphically inferior now but they still have characters that get you emotionally involved!
One area that I think we also forget is not so much graphics may be hitting a brick wall, but the cost to create a game. With these fancy, polygon pushing graphic cards comes more expense and more time to create games. It is going to get to the point, maybe sooner than later, that companies will not be able to afford to upgrade visuals and still maintain great gameplay. That is what I think is great about the Wii, it has a relatively lower budget for gaming.
Post by: utarefsoN on February 02, 2007, 04:22:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nitsu niflheim
I'm sorry, but gameplay comes first. no matter how great the graphics are, a crappy, boring game is still a crappy boring game no mater how pretty you make it. Sh.t is still sh.t no matter how you dress it up.
true, but ill be damned if i play games that look like NES games these days no matter how fun they are. Can you imagine paying 250 for a console and the graphics look like nes games (VC games notwithstanding). it can be the most fun thing ever, ima be pissed.
Fact is graphics are important. but not at the expense of fun. I think we can agree that a very fun game with excellent graphics is total ownage. I cite RE4, both Metroid Primes, Zelda TP, Eternal Darkness, F Zero etc.
Any argument that says graphics dont matter is unreasonable.
Post by: Kairon on February 02, 2007, 04:27:07 PM
In contrast, there are COUNTLESS cases where bad gameplay has been impossible to overcome with wonderful graphics. Otherwise we'd have more Kameo lovers in the world.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: IceCold on February 02, 2007, 05:29:20 PM
Post by: jasonditz on February 02, 2007, 05:56:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
There are VERY few cases where low tech graphics detract from fun when the fun is there. After all, look at Animal Crossing: you're playing N64 graphics. Look at Pokemon, for godssake, SUB SNES graphics until just recently. And sales through the roof.
In contrast, there are COUNTLESS cases where bad gameplay has been impossible to overcome with wonderful graphics. Otherwise we'd have more Kameo lovers in the world.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Here's the first example that leaps to mind: Hexen for the N64. Hexen for the PC was a very fun little game, all the same content is there and there's nothing wrong with the control scheme. Yet the game is such an eyesore that it's no fun at all.
Post by: ThePerm on February 02, 2007, 06:27:41 PM
Post by: denjet78 on February 02, 2007, 07:17:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
i thought Cubivore was one of the best games I have played in the last several years, graphics do not matter
Cubivore! I've been trying to get my hands on that game for a while now. I knew it was going to end up being a collectors item. The art style just completely gets my goat. The fact that they made the ripples in the water square as well... DOOD! Animal Crossing was unbelievably great too, and it was little more than an N64 game.
I think that instead of saying graphics don't matter we should say that cutting edge graphics don't matter.
Post by: UERD on February 02, 2007, 07:19:58 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2007, 07:47:09 PM
Post by: Kairon on February 02, 2007, 08:14:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Here's the first example that leaps to mind: Hexen for the N64. Hexen for the PC was a very fun little game, all the same content is there and there's nothing wrong with the control scheme. Yet the game is such an eyesore that it's no fun at all.
Funny thing... I actually bought that used recently on a whim... and I know what you're talking about...eheh...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2007, 08:24:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Here's the first example that leaps to mind: Hexen for the N64. Hexen for the PC was a very fun little game, all the same content is there and there's nothing wrong with the control scheme. Yet the game is such an eyesore that it's no fun at all.
Funny thing... I actually bought that used recently on a whim... and I know what you're talking about...eheh...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
I was hoping to forget Hexen, wasn't it supposed to be one of the first multiplayer games for N64? If I recall it actually had LOADING as well, which is hilarious for a cartridge game.
Post by: Kairon on February 02, 2007, 08:35:05 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 02, 2007, 08:50:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
But man... Duke Nukem 64... I'd pay GOOD Money to have THAT game again. I loved the bots in that game!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Ah yes, I remember that game. It was pretty good!
